A Question For Liberals Regarding Unity

[Ana the Ist]

Multiple Democrat politicians have been repeatedly calling for unity. They see the political division of the population as the driving factor of a lot of the problems we are having in the US. I happen to agree.

To me, unity means being willing to listen to both sides of an issue and consider the possibility of compromise. Compromise, of course, means giving something to get something.

I see a lot of Democratic supporters also recognizing the need for unity...but I don't see exactly what they're willing to compromise.

If you're a Democrat, or liberal , or progressive or otherwise on the left side of the political spectrum....what does unity mean to you and what are you willing to compromise with the right on?

 

[Hans Blaster]

I'm not a Democrat. Perhaps I am a liberal, but certainly I am on the left end of the CF political spectrum, so here's my first try at unity around facts and basic principles:

There was no large scale fraud or cheating in the casting or counting of votes during the most recent election.

Around 7 million more voters cast ballots for Biden than Trump nationwide.

Biden won states totaling 306 electoral votes; Trump won states totaling 232 electoral votes.

Thus Biden was duly and properly elected.

Invading the Capitol to interfere with the outcome of the above was bad.

Donald Trump and other politicians known and unknown to the nation played a role in inciting and encouraging that violent insurrection and they were wrong to do so.

If you can agree to these I will consider unity based on additional and unrelated facts, if you can't -- bye!

 

[Der Alte]

Democrat version of unity.

“You think we’re rallying now? You ain’t seen nothing yet,” [Maxine] Waters said at the event, according to a HuffPost report. “Already you have members of your Cabinet that are being booed out of restaurants ... protesters taking up at their house saying ‘no peace, no sleep.’”
“If you see anybody from that Cabinet in a restaurant, in a department store, at a gasoline station, you get out and you create a crowd and you push back on them and you tell them they’re not welcome anymore, anywhere,” she added.​

 

[Paidiske]

I am not an American, but I guess I'd be more on the left than the right overall.

For me, the quest for unity is about building a vision of the good towards which we want to strive, that we can agree on. We might disagree about methods or particular details, but if the overall picture of the common good is a shared one, and then we can work together on the issues of methods or details.

In that sense it's not about compromise, in that the goal is a shared one; but it will inevitably be about compromise as we're unlikely to agree about every step taken towards that goal.

I must admit that my concern, as someone outside America observing its politics from afar, is that I am not sure that a shared vision of the common good is something many people even want to engage in building.

 

[Sketcher]

I'm not a Democrat. Perhaps I am a liberal, but certainly I am on the left end of the CF political spectrum, so here's my first try at unity around facts and basic principles:

There was no large scale fraud or cheating in the casting or counting of votes during the most recent election.

Around 7 million more voters cast ballots for Biden than Trump nationwide.

Biden won states totaling 306 electoral votes; Trump won states totaling 232 electoral votes.

Thus Biden was duly and properly elected.

Invading the Capitol to interfere with the outcome of the above was bad.

Donald Trump and other politicians known and unknown to the nation played a role in inciting and encouraging that violent insurrection and they were wrong to do so.

If you can agree to these I will consider unity based on additional and unrelated facts, if you can't -- bye!

I can agree to that, though I would need proof of the "other politicians" to get on board with that part. But I believe that is incidental to the larger conversation, and I don't want to get into the details of that for the purposes of this thread.

What then, would you be willing to compromise with me?

 

[Pommer]

I'm not a Democrat. Perhaps I am a liberal, but certainly I am on the left end of the CF political spectrum, so here's my first try at unity around facts and basic principles:

There was no large scale fraud or cheating in the casting or counting of votes during the most recent election.

Around 7 million more voters cast ballots for Biden than Trump nationwide.

Biden won states totaling 306 electoral votes; Trump won states totaling 232 electoral votes.

Thus Biden was duly and properly elected.

Invading the Capitol to interfere with the outcome of the above was bad.

Donald Trump and other politicians known and unknown to the nation played a role in inciting and encouraging that violent insurrection and they were wrong to do so.

If you can agree to these I will consider unity based on additional and unrelated facts, if you can't -- bye!

oh, so close!

 

[Sophrosyne]

Unity is nothing but a smoke screen IMO.

 

[Pommer]

Democrat version of unity.

“You think we’re rallying now? You ain’t seen nothing yet,” [Maxine] Waters said at the event, according to a HuffPost report. “Already you have members of your Cabinet that are being booed out of restaurants ... protesters taking up at their house saying ‘no peace, no sleep.’”
“If you see anybody from that Cabinet in a restaurant, in a department store, at a gasoline station, you get out and you create a crowd and you push back on them and you tell them they’re not welcome anymore, anywhere,” she added.​

People who are publicly shamed are usually those who’ve done (allegedly) things to deserve such shaming.
This was back when politics was fun and not a daily exercise in existential angst and Sarah Huckabee-Sanders was asked to leave a restaurant and then cried about it.

You want to be tolerated?
Don’t lie to us daily.

I respect your right to hold any opinions you may espouse, I do not have to respect the opinion per se.
Good evening.

 

[public hermit]

I considered myself moderate. As things stand, I'm clearly far from right. I think we need to revamp the non-discussion about race that we are also not really having.

We need studies guided by a bipartisan commission that is strongly supported by both parties as to the legitimacy of, and if applicable, the scope of systemic racism. We need evidence (I think it already exists) one way or the other. I think both sides would support this.

This would not be compromise, in terms of legislation, but a step towards compromise (unity).

 

[Taodeching]

I am a conservative and at this point I could not unify with liberals

 

[Pommer]

I think we need to revamp the non-discussion about race that we are also not really having.

“We have to talk” vs “What ‘problems’?”
That one?

 

[Speedwell]

I am a conservative and at this point I could not unify with liberals

What's the barrier? What would Liberals have to concede for you to get over it?

 

[public hermit]

“We have to talk” vs “What ‘problems’?”
That one?

You'll have to flesh that out a little more. I'm not familiar with the dichotomy.

 

[nonaeroterraqueous]

what are you willing to compromise with the right on?

Thirteen posts, so far, and no attempt to answer the question.

 

[Pommer]

You'll have to flesh that out a little more. I'm not familiar with the dichotomy.

Well, it’s a “relationship trope”.
One Party (not necessarily a political party, think “romantic relationship”), has complaints
Party 2 thinks “Everything is ‘fine’”

It usually come down to
“If everything is fine, why’re we always fighting!?”

But it scales, too, for our society.

 

[Pommer]

Thirteen posts, so far, and no attempt to answer the question.

Post #2

 

[nonaeroterraqueous]

Post #2

No, man, read the question.

 

[Hans Blaster]

You want to be tolerated?
Don’t lie to us daily.

I respect your right to hold any opinions you may espouse, I do not have to respect the opinion per se.
Good evening.

These seem like good things to add to our minimal unity set. Truth and an absence of falsehood all sound good to me. (I would include in the opinion category not only personal opinions an political opinions the additional category of religious opinions.)

 

[public hermit]

Well, it’s a “relationship trope”.
One Party (not necessarily a political party, think “romantic relationship”), has complaints
Party 2 thinks “Everything is ‘fine’”

It usually come down to
“If everything is fine, why’re we always fighting!?”

But it scales, too, for our society.

I'm thinking a bipartisan commission. Whatever analogy works with that, then cool.

 

[civilwarbuff]

There was no large scale fraud or cheating in the casting or counting of votes during the most recent election.

Then why does the left fight so hard against investigation?.....I mean, if there is nothing there wouldn't it be great if the left could show that?

Invading the Capitol to interfere with the outcome of the above was bad.

Any kind of political violence is bad....unless you are Pelosi who called heroes of those who stormed the Wisconsin Capitol in 2011. Guess some are more equal that others?

Donald Trump and other politicians known and unknown to the nation played a role in inciting and encouraging that violent insurrection and they were wrong to do so.

Please feel free to provide the evidence of that....and I do mean EVIDENCE not opinion or interpretation.
And to plagiarize: If you can agree to these I will consider unity based on additional and unrelated facts, if you can't -- bye!